Evaluate an Argument - Essay Example

Section/# Debate/ Argument Analysis Although it is oftentimes tempting to analyze a debate between two individuals and determine which arguments are presented and how logical and sound they are based upon who might have won a particular debate, the case that will be analyzed within this brief paper is one in which this student believes both individuals presented severe logical shortcomings in terms of their argument they sought to present. Accordingly, the debate that was chosen was one that took place in 2004 between then Sen.

Obama and Alan Keyes.The debate begins by the moderator asking Sen. Obama whether or not she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In true politician form, Obama dodges the question and states that even though he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, homosexuals should also be provided the very same civil rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. Furthermore, when asked to define whether or not homosexuality was inherent, Sen. Obama once again does not deliver a direct answer in states that in most cases he believes it to be inherent but there are certain exceptions in which it is not.

However, the true heart of the debate takes place when Alan Keyes is challenged based upon his definition for the purpose of marriage. Evidently, Sen. Obama direct to the audience’s attention to the fact that Alan Keyes has made a particularly absurd statement with regard to the fact that marriage has only one goal; procreation. Accordingly, Sen. Obama asks Alan Keyes that if marriage has this solitary goal – what is the purpose of individuals that are impotent, infertile, or otherwise aged and cannot have children being married?

Alan Keyes resorts to his profound knowledge of logic and argument and unleashed a barrage of doublespeak in which he attempted to state that the goal of marriage is procreation but even those that cannot procreate still have a right to be married. Accordingly, Sen. Obama points to the logical inconsistency that is represented within this particular view; namely the fact that Alan Keyes wishes to state that marriage is solely intended for the active procreation – however even though certain individuals cannot procreate – marriage is still somehow right for them well.

Finally, further differentiation of viewpoints is revealed with regards the way in which he compares with incest. According to Alan Keyes, the relationship between possible handset and they often do with the fact that the fertilization process of children adopted by lesbian couple leaves father a mystery to all parties involved; thereby not allowing anyone to know maybe their siblings. By drawing this argument in all of its complexity, Alan Keyes denotes that is creates an invariable possibility for incest.

Therefore, from a logical standpoint and an argumentative analysis, it can be inferred that both of these individuals failed to present a logically sound argument that could withstand criticism or analysis. Although it is true that Sen. Obama’s argument was less ludicrous as compared to Alan Keyes, it was not substantiated in fact and was solely contingent upon his own personal beliefs and limited experience.ReferenceN.a. (2004, October 4). Obama Keyes Debate on Religion and Gay Marriage.wmv [Video file].

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXJ3V55ii-U